linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/24] objtool: Handle __sanitize

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:07:58 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     jpoimboe@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joro@...tes.org,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, jgross@...e.com, x86@...nel.org,
        mbenes@...e.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/24] objtool: Handle __sanitize_cov*() tail calls

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:18:12 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > > +	if (mcount && !strcmp(insn->call_dest->name, "__fentry__")) {
> > > +		if (sibling)
> > > +			WARN_FUNC("Tail call to __fentry__ !?!?", insn->sec, insn->offset);  
> > 
> > Have you ever triggered the above?  
> 
> No, that would be really daft. But since this function is to be called
> for both regular and tail calls, I figured I'd at least pretend to
> handle the case.

OK. I thought this was like one of those weird laws that were made
because you know that someone did something really stupid once.

-- Steve